|
 Log in |
Register
|
|
 Head To Head The Modern Antiquarian General Discussion Forum | Start a topic | Search |
 Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger 433 messages | Select a forum: |
Sanctuary wrote: tiompan wrote: But I think it occupies the same position and function as it did originally . I don't. Look at it VERY, VERY carefully. I have an advantage over you as I can look at it closely all round and observe its shape. Look at its profile in Dymond's ground plan. That's all I'm saying but all will be revealed soon. If the Dymond plan is different from what we see today that has no bearing on the original morphology . it only means that the plan is wrong or things have changed since . The problem is finding evidence to show that the ante-chamber stone was not in the position that is today and also in the Dymond plan . We have just seen how something that is there , i.e. the padstone , was missed out of one plan , if that is all we had to go on there would be a case for suggesting that it was introduced after the plan which we know to be wrong . Reply | with quote |  8th March 2013ce 22:36 In reply to: Re: Trethevy Quoit in danger (Sanctuary) |
Messages in this topic: |
|